OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to produce translations of the ePRO version of the EQ-5D that are conceptually equivalent to the original and other language versions, ensuring that the resulting translations are suitable for use in the ePRO format. METHODS: The methodology employed was: 1 forward and 1 back translation, review, developer review, linguistic validation interviews with 5 respondents (a mix of lay people and patients), second developer review and 2 proofreadings. RESULTS: The translation process highlighted numerous issues: 1) ‘Tap’, meaning to press lightly on the screen with a stylus, proved problematic in translation. In some languages, a literal translation would result in the patient touching the screen too lightly, not understanding that pressure was required. In other languages, there was no exact translation available. ‘press’ or ‘touch with the stylus’ were used as alternatives (French and Russian respectively), ensuring that patients could navigate the platform; 2) In some Romance languages, the emphasis of ‘tap ONE box’, meaning only one, became lost due to the languages’ requirement of an article. Some translators used a capitalised definite article ('THE'), others placed ‘ONLY ONE’ in brackets to provide the stress; 3) The Eastern European translators maintained that there is  isno literal translation of ‘heading’, in the context of a title with sentences underneath. To render the intended meaning, they used ‘the text in bold’ or ‘in each of the groups’; 4) Some languages found ‘Please do this by [...]’ a difficult construction to translate directly and colloquially. The expression was substituted with ‘You do it by [...]’, which was more idiomatic. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D ePRO has been translated and linguistically validated using a rigorous translation process. A number of cultural and linguistic issues became apparent and were resolved. The measure is now appropriate for use in multinational trials.